Story Comments
Posted by: KISA452a 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
50%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow... Haven't been around here, but your utter brainwashing and attempts to further your own brainwashing are amazing... Knowing many Christians, I know that most do not want a theocrasy and would have stepped in to stop it.
Reply
"Thankfully I, and those like me, failed." and now freedom of relgion means bans on public prayers. It means any but Christain (or sometimes religions in general, but usually only Christian) displays are prohibited in public.
True freedom and following of the Constitution means the right to do what you say without government inteference. This goes for all aspects of life. Having government prohibit religion can never, in any rationalization, be considered freedom of religion.-
90%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Knowing many Christians, I know that most do not want a theocrasy and would have stepped in to stop it."
Reply
Just like they step in to stop the illegal and immoral proselytizing of US troops by evangelicals within the military on military and government time? Just like they make statements against those who murder doctors based on recent religious dogmatism? Just as they decry statements made by right-wing religious nutters about murdering the president? Just as they speak out about atrocities committed in the name of "holy war" or "crusades" in Iraq and the middle east?
I will agree that the majority of Christians likely don't want a theocracy. I'm not sure the majority would step in to stop one, as the majority of Christians haven't stepped in and stopped the infiltration of fundamentalists and self-proclaimed evangelicals within the Pentagon and other areas of government.-
22%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You take your own perspective and try to paint it onto your oponents.
Reply
They see the freedom of religion, protected under the US constitution, to include the right to prostheletize.
They see abortion as killing babies and so killing the killers as justified since the government will not do what should be done.
I didn't hear much about the threats to Obama, just not much for Bush, etc. In general, I don't hear anyone espousing assassinating government officials... Only the left or those in the Middle East call it a
Holy war although Bush and co screwed up calling it a crusade. Not sure wtf they were thinking... But if you assume the war was either justified in teh begining or that the US is there and needs to win and start with that basis, the war is being prosecuted more humanely than any in history. Excesses occur in war and the accused should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, punished.
But your idea of what defines a theocracy is so broad that you consider that if someone disagrees with your opinion that they want to overthrow the US or impose a theocracy. You take differences in opinion and use them to paint your opponents as radicals for simple differences in interpretation.
It also worries me that you suggest that evangelicals and fundamentalists are somehow inherrently or defined as being unaccpetable in the pentagon and other areas of government. Your broad brush certainly suggests that is your point of view.-
87%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They see the freedom of religion, protected under the US constitution, to include the right to prostheletize."
Reply
Yet they rant and rave about constitutional law, conveniently forgetting the anti-establishment clause and laws set in place to prevent religion within the military? Yet they go on and on about Hitler and nationalism, yet embrace the same tactics?
"They see abortion as killing babies and so killing the killers as justified since the government will not do what should be done."
I understand the dogmatic belief that abortion is 'killing babies' despite Biblical passages to the contrary (Exo 21:22-23, Lev 27:6, Num, Hosea, et cetera). Killing the 'killer' is still murder no matter how you sell it and violates any number of tenets of Christianity and Christ's example.
"Holy war although Bush and co screwed up calling it a crusade. Not sure wtf they were thinking."
They called it a crusade multiple times. Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. Crypto-evangelicals talk about it being a holy war within the ranks all the time.
"But your idea of what defines a theocracy is so broad that you consider that if someone disagrees with your opinion that they want to overthrow the US or impose a theocracy."
Not at all. A Theocracy simply means, for me, that God is considered the supreme civic leader and that God's will is determined by a group of 'priests' of some sort of another and then forced down the throat of the people they rule over. It doesn't matter if it's someone who agrees with my 'opinion' or my tradition -- I don't want any kind of a theocracy.
"You take differences in opinion and use them to paint your opponents as radicals for simple differences in interpretation."
People who justify murder (as you did) through religious dogma ARE radicals, ARE dangerous. People who justify invading a country and then killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people because God told them to ARE radicals, ARE dangerous and are likely insane.-
14%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"laws set in place to prevent religion within the military?" Again, quote the Constituional basis for this.
Reply
"Yet they go on and on about Hitler and nationalism, yet embrace the same tactics?" I've missed those gas chambers. Please give links if you want to try to draw such a comparison.
Is it murder to kill someone trying to kill your child? To kill someone invading your country? To kill someone trying to blow up a daycare center or a children's hospital? You see it differently so you all people who think this way freaks or whatever.
Not sure about the "God told me". I'd have to see it in context. But then you bring up killing hundreds and hundreds of thousands. That number included everyone killed by gangs, by insurgents, as well as US soldiers. Your statement implies that the killing was either planned or at least no consideration was paid to keeping it as low as possible.-
90%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Not sure about the 'God told me'. I'd have to see it in context."
Reply
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.ht... -
100%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
""laws set in place to prevent religion within the military?" Again, quote the Constituional basis for this."
Reply
Again read the anti-establishment clause. Again review the laws of our country upon which our country's reputation and standing in the world is based.
"Is it murder to kill someone trying to kill your child? To kill someone invading your country? To kill someone trying to blow up a daycare center or a children's hospital? You see it differently so you all people who think this way freaks or whatever."
It is murder to kill someone based on religious dogma.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, if someone's religious beliefs say "thou shalt not kill" and they kill to prevent a murder (someone breaks into their house and wants to kill their kids) then he am guilty of murder because it agreed with this religious beleif? On the other hand, if you did not have this religious belief it would be justifiable.... Very odd morality you have there...
Reply
You can not take the establishment clause, read it, and honestly come to the conclusion you try to place onto it. Read it, not the lies that have been created around it.
-
-
-
-
-
91%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It also worries me that you suggest that evangelicals and fundamentalists are somehow inherrently or defined as being unaccpetable in the pentagon and other areas of government. Your broad brush certainly suggests that is your point of view."
Reply
They're welcome wherever they want as long as they're not pushing their agenda, recruiting people by force of position to their cause, basing their decisions on religious dogma rather than law and lawful orders or trying to subvert the government -- which has been a stated goal of many self-proclaimed evangelicals. The same goes for liberal Universal Unitarians. I don't want them pushing their watered-down Christ by another name crapola either.-
14%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How do you subvert the government? It is reasonable to say that the election of Obama has subverted the government of Bush. Any change of government subverts the last government. If they win at the polls, they have upheld the democratic government. It is up to those with a differing philosophy to ensure that they do not win at the polls. There is NO PLACE in a democratic America for restrictions on thought and action (unless violent) and this path is subverting the government of the United States of America as established and agreed upon in the Constitution.
Reply-
100%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sub·vert Pronunciation (sb-vûrt)
Reply
tr.v. sub·vert·ed, sub·vert·ing, sub·verts
1. To destroy completely; ruin: "schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community" (Alexander Hamilton).
2. To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
3. To overthrow completely: "Economic assistance ... must subvert the existing ... feudal or tribal order" (Henry A. Kissinger). See Synonyms at overthrow.-
25%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks, you proved my point very well.
Reply
OK, just re-read. That was a somewhat rhetorical question there. The question really is how, if they win an election, would the subvert the government which they took control of by legal means? This would be equivalent to saying the Barry subverted Bush.-
-
-
100%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But they're not trying to win an election. They're trying to force conversion within the lower ranks of the military from the higher ranks. They're spreading propaganda and lies based on new religious dogma formed out of the 'end of times' fantasy dreamed up in recent times to scare people into doing their will.
Reply-
-
-
-
100%
TheGrunt6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Apparently you don't know the definition of "proselytizing"...go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.
Reply
...
....
......
See?! It's not just saying something religious. Sorry, it's not agreeing to disagree...If you're still in disagreement, then you're disagreeing with the government, who admitted that proselytizing to subordinates is wrong. If you then say the government shouldn't stop them, then you're saying the government supports proselytizing...hence, making it a Theocracy...ergo, you're wrong...period, end of story.-
Neutral
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, so since "the government' agreed to invade Iraq you're all for it? Don't EVER use "the government says so" as an argument. The number of things "the government" has done throughout history proves that to be a worthless argument.
Reply
pros·e·ly·tize (pr?s'?-l?-t?z')
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v. intr.
1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.
v. tr.
To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.
Persude: To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion. See Synonyms at persuade.
Dang! Nothing about forcing people. Talking to someone about religion is proselytizing.-
100%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Talking to someone about religion is proselytizing."
Reply
That's inaccurate. I can tell you that I have no religion and you can tell me that you do. We would be talking about religion, but neither of us would be proselytizing. If I try to get you to stop believing or you try to get me to believe as you do, that would be proselytizing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is reasonable to say that the election of Obama has subverted the government of Bush.
Reply
The government of Bush no longer exists. The U.S. is now governed by the Obama administration.
It's not subversion, it's replacement, in accordance with the Constitution.
And again, no one is restricting thought or action, except in accordance with the 1st amendment's establishment clause.-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not that Christians would subvert the government by winning elections, it's that those who would promote the Christian religion with the power of the government if they won would be subverting the Constitutional protection against government establishing religion. Not all Christians would do this--only the ones who see no problem with monuments to Christianity on public grounds, prayer in public schools, and other such goals of evangelicals.
Reply-
50%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your idea of freedom of religion differs from the idea that others have about the same topic from the same quote. You have set your opinion as unquestionable. The idea that allowing a nativity scene on public property or voluntary prayer in public schools is the same as establishing a religion is incomprehensible to me. Forcing people to worship at the nativity or forcing them to pray would be using the power of the government to establish a government religion. Allowing freedom of choice wasn't supposed to be the same as forcing that choice on a person, I thought.
Reply-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everybody's opinion is questionable, in the sense that it can be debated.
Reply
In this case, the courts have backed the interpretation I subscribe to for years--since long before you were born. It is your opinion that is out of the mainstream, and, according to many learned judges whose job it is to protect the Constitution, incorrect.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. How old am I?
Reply
2. Not all "learned judges" agree.
3. "Learned judges" make collective, acknowledged and deliberate rulings that they know to be unconstitutional. Most of the civil rights laws based on the "past history of discrimination" to violate the Constitution. If you support this violation on the part of 7 (I think at the time) white men you have given up any semblance or interest in the Constutition and its supposed protections.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1) I don't know exactly how old you are, but I'm 99.99% certain you're not over 150.
Reply
2) Many learned judges agree. Most learned judges agree.
3) You're right--some learned judges make deliberate rulings that they know to be unconstitutional--like the one allowing "In God we trust" to be printed on money.
If you're going to argue strict constructionism, there's no point in debating you. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the judiciary sole authority to judge all cases in law and Equity," and its power to interpret the Constitution was solidified by Marbury v. Madison in 1803.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You either have strict constructionism or nothing. I couldn't care less about Marbury v Maidson since it is not in the Consitution.
Reply
The Consittuion was essentially a contract between "we the people" and the government. Now the government rewrites the contract at will. Hopefully you will see the awful power you are handing to these people before it is too late....-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I couldn't care less about Marbury v Maidson since it is not in the Consitution."
Reply
Then you clearly don't care about what the Constitution says, since the Constitution gives the courts the right to interpret and to judge cases having to do with the law.
As a strict constructionist, you don't get to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you feel are acceptable.-
Neutral
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Untrue. They get to interpret, but it would seem obvious they can not take the text and go directly against it. Hmmm. Have to go look again. If you had a contract that said "Company A will fix your roof for $3000" and then they felt like changing it to say "Company A will fix your window for $100,000" and they claimed the right to annul your previous contract and replace it with the new one, you would see a problem. "The people" did not agree to the current interpretations making it not "interpreting" but "rewriting".
Reply
You comment about stict constructionist puts your own opinion and tries to force it on me. An equally as valid statement is that a revisionist (you agree with SCOTUS revising the Constitution at whim) you don't get to pick and choose what they are or are not allowed to revise. This dictates that you have zero protections since SCOTUS can revoke or add anything they like, any time they want. "you don't get to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you feel are" sacrosanct.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right, I don't get to pick and choose anything about the Constitution.
Reply
The courts do. It is their power, according to the Constitution. Interpretations of the language of the Constitution vary, and where there are disputes, the courts decide--on the basis of their interpretation.
In addition, if Congress disagrees with the courts, they can write new legislation, or they can amend the Constitution if the amendment is ratified by enough state legislatures. This is how various branches of government have power over each other. It is explicitly written in the Constitution.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (8)
Klarissa
vidman04
dBergeron
libsRfunny
DenCuddy
TheRealizer
Wolfie2007
gandalffPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (8)
fsev41
Goppy
mesodude
smithichie
bluetexasvalley
ProgressiveSubmit a Story
Advertisement
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.